[aur-general] Orphaning mediatomb

Mike Bedwell pcallycat at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 00:06:02 EDT 2011

On 10/23/2011 09:10 PM, Jonathan Conder wrote:
> On 24 October 2011 01:42, Dieter Plaetinck<dieter at plaetinck.be>  wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:10:48 +1300
>> Jonathan Conder<jonno.conder at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi TUs,
>>> In a few days I will be orphaning my package mediatomb, and will
>>> delete it too unless anyone is interested in maintaining it. It has
>>> been unmaintained upstream for over a year, and currently I don't
>>> have enough time to deal with the issues that keep cropping up
>>> because of this. At the moment it isn't even installed on my main
>>> computer. Thought I'd just let people know first, in case anyone else
>>> is interested in maintaining it, and to give my reasons for dropping
>>> it.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jonathan
>> why would you delete the package?
>> I still use MT.  orphan as you want, but it's not because upstream is inactive that you should remove the package IMHO.
> I was under the impression that it didn't currently work, but on
> closer inspection it looks like one of the bugs was invalid. Maybe it
> should stay then, but unless someone is willing to maintain it I think
> we should encourage new users to look for an alternative (by removing
> it from the repos).
>> Dieter
I'm just a noob to the lists, but I don't understand why non-maintained 
mediatomb equates to a package that is no longer relevant to anyone.  
Unless it is severely broken, I would think that many would appreciate 
it continuing on in the repos.  At worst, don't delete it, but relegate 
it to AUR instead.  I use mediatomb in my home and would hate to see a 
loss of the package.  In aur, most are aware that, "You get what you get 
and you don't throw a fit".

More information about the aur-general mailing list